There can be only 1: Polaroid licensee withdraws Nikon-like camera

Sakar International, which makes cameras under the Polaroid brand name, has agreed to stop selling the model at the center of a patent and trade dress dispute with Nikon. A New York court issued an injunction stopping Sakar from making, selling or advertising the Android-powered iM1836, based on an agreement reached by the two companies. Nikon claims the interchangeable lens iM1836 infringed design patents and 'trade dress' (appearance) of its 1 System.

At launch Sakar said the system would have sensors built into each lens; and the claims of a 27-80mm equivalent range from the 10-30mm lens imply a 1"-type sensor, but details are vague, even where it's on sale.

On October 11, 2013, Nikon Corporation and Nikon Inc. ("Nikon") sued Sakar International, Inc. ("Sakar") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for design patent infringement and trade dress infringement arising from Sakar's "Polaroid iM1836" digital camera (Case No. 13-Civ-7228 (S.D.N.Y)).

Shortly thereafter, Nikon moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the sales and advertising of the Polaroid iM1836 digital camera. After appearing before the Court, Sakar and Nikon agreed on the terms of a preliminary injunction. The Court thus issued a Preliminary Injunction Order on December 4, 2013 (Eastern Standard Time).

As part of the injunction, Sakar will no longer manufacture, import, advertise, promote, offer for sale, sell, or ship the Polaroid iM1836 digital camera in its present configuration.

The abovementioned design patent and trade dress rights are related to the "Nikon 1" Advanced Camera with Interchangeable Lenses.

Comments

So let me try to get this right- This company Sakar has licensed the basically defunct Polaroid brand name, to produce a vaguely Micro 4/3-ish camera 'system', running off an Android OS, and cosmetically resembling a Nikon 1?

Did I get it all in there? Is there any other company I have not credited?

From the time it was announced, this camera had no chance of existing. The company behind it is incapable of making anything original. The initial announcement was basically a pile of crap dumped on the photographic world. Nikon sued because they don’t want any of the stink on them. I can understand that.

The lawsuit just means more attention on, and maybe more legitimacy given to, the lowlife company that perpetrated this hoax. They are not victims here. If one more person takes their company seriously because of this publicity, it’s a win for them. Meanwhile, they can continue selling Polaroid brand socks and garbage can liners, and whatever else they can make a quick buck with.

And all of those cameras still manage have more difference in their design accents (bevel shape, 2 tone sides etc.) than the Nikon/Polaroid does.

Basically the Polaroid is such a blatant ripoff that Nikon really had no choice. Give me any technical reason why the Polaroid should have the same white square around the strap lugs, the same silver strips on the lens, the same grip texture and the same flat black area around the lens hood bayonet.

There's a lot more different between the two vans than the two cameras other than four wheels. You would have to be brain dead to inadvertently buy the wrong car brand. Not so buying a cheap camera in a busy market.

Patents and copyrights are just a way to abuse your dominant position. Samsung and Apple are the classic example of how this BS slows innovation and punishes the consumer. Car companies are very good examples of industries that have it 'right' they are more interested in producing cars that work cheaply enough for people to buy them and not worry about the shape of the cars that the opposition makes.

robmanueb, it does not take much research to see that the car industry is also rife with lawsuits and licensing over patents and design patents. But why do you drag in copyright? Do you think anyone should be free to publish other people's work?

Well, maybe. Sakar is a small company headquartered in New Jersey. But they don't really actually design anything themselves; they basically license different brands (like Polaroid or Vivitar or Kodak, or even Hello Kitty) and attach them to Chinese imports.

Since it tends to be very low quality and *COMPLETELY* unsupported (try getting ahold of anyone at Sakar with a technical question, let alone a support request!), I'm pretty sympathetic to Nikon here.

It is not Chinese. It is from Edison, New Jersey. I.e. it is American. It has 75 employees and a revenue of $100 Million. Not maybe giant, but not all that small either. It specialises in buying brand names and designing toys and electronic stuff using those brand names. Therefore it bought the brand name Polaroid when this company went belly up.

@yabokkie It's more that Nikon spent money on industrial design to create a very specific look, and if they let one person copy that then they'd loose protection of the design.

If Nikon were just suing over the rough shape it would be one thing, but the Sakar is so blatant (same grip texture, same undersized hood bayonet and same silver/black accents on the lens) that Nikon really didn't have a choice.

The lens does prove a blatant attempt to clone another's workto confuse the buyer.The lens grip texture is an identical colour and similar pattern, the shutter and lens buttons are are identical and just re-positioned. If they made the lens grip black plastic they would have got away with it.

It is a partial design copy but these cameras are still different and I wouldn't call that enough to accuse Sakar of plagiarism in this case (there are differences there, some may have even been deliberately introduced). And if it's not plagiarism, I don't see the point in banning it (the only thing I would probably think prudent to ask of them is changing the font of the gray "10-30" text on the lens which is indeed identical to Nikon's to the point of being confusing ).

I am thinking in terms of common sense here and not the modern law. And in terms of common sense, having to deliberately alter a working design so that it doesn't resemble some other is rather questionable.

Well, I suppose this at least averted lawsuits with Sony about the idea of a lens-shaped camera that talks to, and is operated by, an Android device. ;-)

I see both Adorama and BHPhoto have this on sale for $299 -- which, despite the Polaroid having truly strange specs, is surprisingly more expensive at BH than a similar-looking red or silver Nikon 1 J1 at $219. Even more interesting, BH lists the white J1 as discontinued. Remind me: who won this lawsuit?

"Trade dress" indeed. Why not patent white, red, black, and be done with competition. And there are those letters on one... saying n-i-k-o-n, and the other has p-o-l-a-r uh, something... Is this lawsuit aimed to protect the illiterate? How weird can it get...

Now we need a definition for too similar. It actually may boil down to either someone's idea of functionality or to the same author behind both shapings. In that sense, all cars are similar too. But there are also differences and these should count, without overly strong accent on their quantity. An example would be seen in the army, where everyone is dressed the same, but still not look like clones; for reasons of soldiers iindividual features, abilities etc... and then there are those strips and stars and whatever which differentiate them by their own default.Another example would also be all those SLRs, also many superzoom bridge cameras, or "pocketable" little boxes where the inscriptions often make the only prominent diff.But when the lawyers get involved, all men and/or things can be made equal or different, as per wish, money clout, or whatever other reason, imaginable or not. Like in this case, where all the difference seems to have been disregarded in favor of similarities.

But this is the thing, it's nothing to do with the shape. The Polaroid's lens has the same silver stripes, the same grip texture and the same flat black border around an undersized lens hood bayonet. Those are entirely optional elements, and Sakar *choose* to copy them from the Nikon. Every other camera may be the same rough shape, but they all have their own unique design elements. All the design elements of the iM1836 are directly copied from the Nikon 1.

Still, the size differs, the commands differ, the placement of flash port is different... so why would some stripes be so important, when there are such prominently visible differences, not forgetting product names, manufacturer names etc?Let's say the colors on the camera were other than what was made? Would it still point to similarities? Many people, me included, used to re-paint their cars when the new coat of paint was due, and one of my Fiats was painted citrus-yellow of the BMW. It still remained Fiat, only funnier! ;)In other words, would somebody buy Sakar's product thinking it was Nikon? Hardly a "danger" worthy of all the hullaballoo, IMO.On the other hand, if Nikon's overall design of model 1 was patent-protected to such detail, they'd be within their rights. But we do not know how detailed the patent documents are...Never mind. It's lawyer food anyway.

In this case, the technical innovation - better and cheap Android Camera ... and it is nonsense to do with another new lens mount ... and What is Nikon doing ... They prevent someone to do cameras better and slowing technological development ... but there is Samsung Galaxy NX ... :)

This lawsuit is nothing to do with technical innovation, it's a design patent on the specific look. The Polaroid copies the exact silver strips, the exact grip texture and the exact black area around an identically sized lens hood bayonet. All Sakar (the manufacturer) had to do was not use identical design accents and they would have been fine, I mean just look at it http://i.imgur.com/NJYMQKc.jpg

Wow, I think a lot of people commenting here need to stop and look at the lens. They have the same silver accents, the same grip texture, the same flat black strip around the hood bayonet etc.

If not for the lens I don't think Nikon would have sued (many cameras have similar body colours and shape) but the lens such is a blatant rip-off, and most importantly there's no good technical reason for it to look that way, that I don't see how Nikon really had a choice.

No it's not, design patents are one of the last sane parts of the patent system. It protects an exact look, something can use the same technology and be the same rough shape, but as long as the design isn't identical a design patent doesn't cover it. That's why there are so few design patent cases compared to overly-broad technology (especially software) patents.

I'm glad someone said exactly what I was thinking... These cameras in question each look like a slippery bar of soap... and yet, they clearly are two different cameras. Nikon can't possibly think that this similar looking camera is why their sales are so low. If they do believe this ridiculous notion, there are more serious issues within Nikon to discuss...

This reminds me of Polaroid suing Kodak for infringement over instant film and camera twenty years ago and winning. Then in wasn't long before Polaroid went under. About the same time Honeywell sued Minolta for infringement for their autofocus system. They both went out of business. Honeywell could not make it work well and Minolta did. Minolta paid 121 million for that and ended up selling out to Sony ten years later.

It seems like the end results is they all go out of business. Is Nikon next?

And someone who makes lipstick should sue Lytro - I'm positive my Grandma was trying to put Lytro on her lips the other day.

And Sigma - sue the pants off of Sigma until they make a camera that doesn't look like a brick with a lens glued onto the front.

And while we are at it, sue Sony too, for making cameras that look really good on paper but draw yawns in real life. I know they are capable - their video cameras are consistently top notch if you drop some proper coin.

And Canon - who do they think they are? Sue them! Don't care what for, they just have it coming.

premium customers that all the makers want to have but the sad thing is there are not many of foolish people. a maker cannot rely on those customers to become a top brand but they still try sometimes, like Nikon Df.

Did you really think that camera was a Nikon 1 Series? Was it infringing on Nikon's business (rhetorical question, because it possibly was, but no more than any other camera)? At what point are manufacturers no longer allowed to make a camera that looks like a camera?

This has nothing to do with counterfeiting which is serious (and illegal). The concept here is that the appearance of the Nikon was so unique, it was proprietary. Imagine arguing that people went to buy a genuine Nikon and got a Sakar Polaroid by accident. Whoops! Well, this victory will put a stop to that.

Sadly, real counterfeiting is all over the place. Used to be only things perceived as overpriced, like OEM batteries & chargers (which Canon/Nikon don't make themselves, anyway), but now even even lens caps are faked, right down to the packaging.

"At what point are manufacturers no longer allowed to make a camera that looks like a camera?"

When they are infringing on someone else's design patent. And those are usually very specific, and not about general shapes like "soap bar" or such.There are lots of other "soap bar" cameras on the market, but none is similar enough to be infringing on the Nikon 1 patent. Except for the Sakar/Polaroid camera and lens, which is similar enough, according to the court ruling.You may not like the current patent laws, but given that we have them, we must abide by them. It's up to any designer to make sure that his design isn't too similar to someone else's.

Looks like Nikon is choosing to behave like Kodak in their last days in the camera business with logic like if you can't make money in the camera business, then try to make money in the courtroom. Perhaps we should be asking whether Nikon is headed down the same road.

I am not all for design lookalike protections. The camera says Polaroid. We do know that Polaroid do not mean Nikon. If they had called it Nikon or Nihon or Nippon or some such, then I think there would have been a case. But personally, even if Nikon may be technically right, I find this move by Nikon unnecessary.

Moreover, the Polaroid thing looks like a cheap toy. And I assume it feels even cheaper when you have it in your hand. The Nikon on the other hand looks serious and feels substantial. The Polaroid thing will not hurt the Nikon sales, IMHO.

If Nikon didn't take this to court they'd likely lose protection of their design and other people would copy. Remember it's not just the camera shape, the Polaroid has identical design accents on the lens for no good reason.

Yes, there are differences, but without reading the design patent in question, we don't know what the relevant design elements are. It doesn't have to be identical to be infringing on the patent; it's a question of being similar enough, and that's up to the court to decide.

Hogan speculates that Sakar might be using the molds. Note that the image we've used differs more from the J1 than the ones on his site - as do the images of the prototypes we took at CES (lens release button and AF illuminator in difference places, for example).

I'm just pointing out that your statement that 'Sakar is using...' isn't supported by evidence. It's possible but almost irrelevant - the court will decide whether Sakar has infringed the design rights (and it certainly looks like Nikon has a case). It's 'whether' that matters, rather than 'how.'

Thom has no way of knowing, and that's not what he said. He speculated is that it the two cameras might have been made from the same mold (obviously not by Nikon, or they should sue themselves).

Then, the real revelation: In China, everybody copies everything. Wow. The lawsuits that appear reasonable pertain to technology, trademarks and counterfeiting. If Sakar wrote Nikon on the camera, that would be a serious attempt to fool people.

Well, a web site equivalent of this Sakar thingy would be a web site with a similar layout to this with black background, white text, orange subtitles (instead of blue) and a red square logo (instead of a round blue one) saying something completely different.

Also the web site would be about Chinese gadgets with Android and not cameras.

In other words, artificial similarity with differences obvious at the 2nd sight.

Also, funny fact: When I first encountered the N1 system (which was at their announcement presentation), I thought the J1 looks remarkably similar to a Leica. No, really. Look at it from above. A mini-Leica.

I really don't like these patents and lawsuits. Why just throw money at the lawyers instead of... Well I don't know, how about engineers? Or quality control? Or common sense? (Meaning, don't assemble your cameras from the cheapest Chinese parts, sell them at a massive premium and then act surprised that someone else uses the same parts.)

Anyway, dpreview, maybe you should put a pic of J1 there instead of J3. J3 doesn't look so similar, while J1 is quite identical.

Patent infringement? Yes, they are both white, like many other cameras are black... If you remove the logo on a Nikon and Canon DSLR, I guess the only difference might be the little red thing on the Nikon.The top of the Sakar and the Nikon are very different as Canon and Nikon DSLR are.Now if it's about a design registered at USPTO by Nikon, it might be a different story.I hope it's not just about similar white look.

Look at the lense. They have the same silver accents, the same grip texture, the same flat black strip around the hood bayonet.

If not for the lens I don't think Nikon would have won (many cameras have similar body colours and shape) but the lens is such a blatant rip-off, and most importantly there's no technical reason for it to be.

I've not looked at the design patent owned by Nikon, but comparing the two cameras they do look very similar to me. To the extent that the design patent covers the Nikon 1 then, this seems fair enough to me. Sakar seem to agree, given how far they backed down.

Just because they backed down doesnt mean that they are wrong, just means they dont have as much money as nikon, large corporations can keep small companies in court for years to the point where the little guys go bankrupt. Doesnt matter whos right or wrong anymore.

Why are you assuming they only backed down because they are a smaller company though? It's also possible that that had nothing to do with it, isn't it? To me this looks like a pretty clear case of copying.

This sentence is a justified punishment for Sucker... or rather, Sakar for stupidly trying to imitate what is already a very poor, ugly, horrible and forgetful design devoid of beauty. They should have at least tried a more poorer, uglier, more horrible and oblivious design like Leica Lunatic or Leica Lambroast or something...

Nikon may sometimes be slow developing new lenses or filling backorders but when it comes to suing they are up there with Apple & Samsung. I do see the similarity in these inspired designs but I don't see how consumers might confuse one with the other.

In case anyone is interested, the relevant patent is D682906. The design patents cited in this patent refer extensively to Leica, Samsung, and other Nikon cameras.So where did Sakar go wrong? One guess: the top of the body has a beveled edge to the back. Beyond that, there are very few unique features.

precisely .. i mean why dont you make another format slightly smaller or bigger on a similar concept ... the idea is to get a smaller sensor than APSC or 4/3 to get higher processing speeds and lighter lenses .. isn't it?

and why nikon followed them .. i mean it will only help them selling their 1 system with poloroid making more lenses .. why not act like oly and pany!! why behaving like nikon and canon!!one mount more options ..

Need a different shell, nothing overwhelmingly about the Nikon 1 design. I still like the sensor mated to lens idea-it works well for some of the best cameras in existence, including the Sigma DP series.